SPOILERS BELOW
"Firstly, and this may come as a surprise to some, I felt that there was too much action, particularly in the first half hour, when the audience didn`t really have any time to get over the thrills of one action sequence, before being bombarded with another."
Having seen this film a second time, I still stand by this comment.
"For those in the audience who perhaps couldn`t remember the ending of CR, I`m sure there were many who must have been confused at seeing someone, (Mr. White) appear inside the boot of Bond`s Aston Martin, at the end of the PTS, and wondering, "Who is he, and what was that sequence all about?" Personally I feel it would have been better to have opened the film with the gun barrel, (after all, the ending of CR had fully established Bond as Bond, so why was the gun barrel missing at the start of a new film?) and begin the film with the last scene of CR, and with Bond saying his name, before going into the shots of Bond in the Aston, being chased by White`s men."
Again, I stand by this. The movie just “starts.” There is no build up or any kind of suspense at all. Why did Mr. White turn up at the villa at the end of CR? Was it his home? Was he there to meet someone? If it was the latter, then surely some suspense could have been generated by having the assassins we see during the car chase of QOS, appear at the villa, seeing White`s predicament, (on his knees before Bond), and taking action to protect their comrade. A shootout could have taken place, with Bond getting White into the Aston, and beginning the car chase from there. The “surprise” of White appearing in the Aston`s boot only works if those watching the film remember White from the end of CR. The director is asking a lot of casual Bond fans, (those that simply enjoy seeing a Bond film every two years) to remember the ending of CR.
"As many have noted on this forum, the title song is poor and, whilst the title sequence by MK12 had nowhere near the touch and visual style of Daniel Kleinman, the images did help me forget the theme song playing in the background. Nice use of the gun barrel dots (in red) to help bring up the cast and crew credits, though I felt the font style was too large, which drew your attention more to the writing on screen than the visual images of Bond and the desert in the background."
Zorin:
The song is only poor if you don't like it. Others including myself think it works and especially in the film. It has a contemporary sound. And the better Bond songs always do. And the titles are the most important factor. They are contractual and informational. The pretty backdrops are second place in any Bond film. Even though they are the more memorable part of the titles.
"The song is only poor if you don`t like it.” Well, isn`t that the case with any song you dislike? Sorry, I don`t understand your reasoning here.
"The interrogation of Mr. White by Bond and M was nicely handled, and it was a surprise when one of the British agents suddenly turned out to be a member of Mr. White`s organisation. The rooftop chase was breathtaking, if not that exciting, and I agree with Rye that it was wrong to have intercut these scenes with that of the Italian Palio horse race."
Zorin:
Can I ask why? That was an editing decision and gave the sequence great style and dignity.
Having seen the film again, I still stand by this. Watching it again, it may have had more relevance for me, had Bond chased Mitchell through the horse race. I feel then I`d have gotten the best of both worlds; action versus Bond style glamour
"The hotel fight scene between Bond and Slade seemed pretty pointless, (other than to include another action sequence) and I felt it would have been just as good had Bond just entered an empty hotel room, and found the briefcase. It seems highly implausible that somebody in this day and age could just walk up to a hotel reception desk, and receive a briefcase, without being challenged for some form of identification, before the briefcase is handed over."
Zorin:
I think a lot of people have missed the point that SLATE is an accidental lookalike for BOND. That's why the hotel receptionists gives over the case and that's why CAMILLE picks BOND up immediately. SLATE (now dead) is her contact. The fact SLATE is meant to kill CAMILLE is what BOND tells us. She thinks BOND is the geologist.
Upon reading this, I then understood completely why this scene was needed. I still feel that this sequence is contrived, expecting the audience to simply believe that everything just happens to fall into place for Bond to be able to end up meeting Camille and, indirectly, Greene. I took a keen interest in the fight sequence to see if the actor playing Slate did look a bit like Bond. I came to the inclusion that he didn`t. Certainly not enough for a receptionist to be happy to hand over somebody`s briefcase to.
"The whole sequence of Bond first meeting Camille, and Camille returning to see Greene, (knowing that he wanted her dead) and Bond rescuing her, (why?) seemed pointless in both its set up and execution. (Perhaps the scriptwriters couldn`t think of a better way to introduce both the leading girl and villain to the audience)."
I can understand why Greene doesn`t kill Camille there and then, (realising that she can be used to sweeten the deal between him and the general), but if that`s the case, then why did Greene want her dead in the first place?
"The ‘Tosca’ opera sequence in Austria was a good backdrop for the Quantum meeting and, whilst I can understand Bond revealing himself to Greene and his colleagues so as to take video phone images of the Quantum members, (which by sending them to M did at least push the plot forward) it just seemed ridiculous that he would then expose himself to Greene and his henchmen, simply to allow another shootout, (in a Matrix/John Woo style) for Bond to finally escape. Surely part of the job of being a secret agent is to be able to get in and out of somewhere, without anyone knowing that you were there? Bond achieved that in the first part of this sequence, but not in the latter part. This sequence also re-introduced us to Mr. White`s character, (last seen at the beginning of the film). His re appearance tells us, the audience, that he escaped from MI6 and survived, yet what happens? We never see him again! Is this just lazy scriptwriting or do the writers intend this character to appear again in Bond23? I hope the latter, as I found Mr. White`s character to be one of the more interesting QOS villains."
Zorin:
BOND has to expose himself in order for the Quantum "board members" to panic and flee - hence allowing BOND to see who they are in a crowd of seated thousands. MR WHITE's reappearance tells me enough. That he's a slippery sod who holds importance in times to come. It's not lazy scriptwriting to leave something open ended and vague.
I don`t think you`ve read this particular part properly, Zorin. I have already said that Bond had to expose himself to the board members, otherwise he wouldn`t have been able to get the phone photos. I disagree with you regarding Mr. White`s reappearance. Surely if you re-introduce a character, (especially one whom you haven`t seen since the beginning of the film) isn`t it natural to explain to the audience where he has been all this time, and what he might then be doing? You don`t necessarily have to give too much away about his future plans, but surely loose ends like these have to be tied up somewhat?
"When M cancels his credit cards, leaving him stranded, Bond turns to the one person he feels can help him; Rene Mathis. Once again I concur with Rye`s thoughts on this. Why would Bond turn to Mathis, a person he believed at the end of CR might still be on Le Chiffre`s payroll, (and therefore was to be interrogated to find out if that was true or not) yet, in the intervening time between that happening and Bond meeting Mathis again at his Italian villa, neither Bond or the audience are told that Mathis was found to be completely innocent."
Zorin:
BOND did not get MATHIS 'taken away' in ROYALE to have him beaten up and punished. BOND did that to keep MATHIS away from LE CHIFFRE and the QUANTUM boys. And BOND was told that MATHIS is a bad 'un via VESPER. BOND has now realised not everything she said was right so he feels he can approach MATHIS again.
Zorin, I never said in my above paragraph that Bond got Mathis ‘taken away’ in CR, to have him beaten up and punished. Bond only approaches Mathis again in QOS, simply because he now knows that Mathis is innocent, and because he has no one else to turn to.
"This could be confusing for those members of the audience who don`t remember Mathis` character from CR, (or the events that led up to why he was taken away by MI6 in the first place) and by not explaining what happened during that intervening time, some of the audience will just end up completely baffled by the whole scene. Bond just seems to accept that Mathis is innocent, and doesn`t even apologise for what MI6 did to him. At first, Mathis doesn`t want to help Bond, (which, after having been interrogated, tortured and deemed a traitor, is quite understandable) but it`s only after some cajoling from his girlfriend that Mathis is prepared to Live and Let Live, and agrees to go with Bond to Bolivia. His anger and resentment to Bond and MI6 is then suddenly forgotten, simply because Bond needs his help. So, that`s alright then."
Zorin:
MATHIS is feeling the hunger - the hunger to get involved and make a difference. He can help his woman dab on suntan lotion in luxurious bliss or he can get his fingers dirty and get back to the field. It's a great signpost and warning to BOND about getting too cosy with the paid perks of the lifestyle.
BOND accepts that MATHIS is part of the game of being a spy, double and triple agent. The difference is MATHIS has integrity - even amidst the necessary lies.
You make two great points there. However, I still believe the scriptwriters could have made it a bit more difficult for Bond to persuade Mathis to help him. It just came over to me that Mathis was quite willing to forget all too quickly, all that had been done to him by MI6.
"In Bolivia Bond meets Agent Fields, (a cough and a spit cameo from Gemma Arterton) who`s screen time is so short that the actress has absolutely no chance of being able to develop her character, either by the script or by her performance, (which frankly isn`t much). And why does M send her, a girl from the office, to bring Bond back home? Hasn`t M learnt by now that sending a pretty girl to meet Bond is not a good idea, (a la Serena Gordon`s character in GoldenEye). Why first send a girl to bring Bond back, then later, (because surprise, surprise that didn`t work) three armed MI6 agents to do the same job?"
Zorin:
Why did TILLY MASTERSON help BOND? Why did GOLDFINGER's JILL help BOND? Why did SOLANGE help BOND? It's part of the myth of the man. Women drop at his feet and get their fingers burnt. M hits that home to BOND in that crucial hotel scene. Are they all going to end up dead or can he help at least one (i.e. CAMILLE).
Tilly, Jill and Solange were not agents. They just happened to be ‘normal’ people who became involved with Bond for a short time, and ended up dead because of it. I suppose you could also call Fields ‘normal’ in that she works at a consulate, but the difference between her and the other three mentioned is that she has had some experience in dealing with government types and officials. She would have known that there was a potential risk to her in getting involved with bringing Bond to book.
And I ask you again, (and others); can you really believe that M would send this girl, from an office, and expect her to be able to get Bond to return with her to London? M knows Bond. She knows he wouldn`t just come quietly. This was proven later when she turns up at his hotel, with three MI6 agents. M brings these agents with her because she knows Bond won`t go quietly. So why didn`t she think this way before she got Fields involved?
"It is here in Bolivia that Bond first meets Dominic Greene, (Mathieu Amalric) who, during the course of the film, turns out to be a very poor Bond villain. Bond has to have a villain that is comparable to himself, and coming after the wonderful performance given by Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre in CR, Amalric`s performance barely registers above the zero level."
Having been able to study Amalric`s performance more closely this second time, I still stand by my original statement. To me, his character is poor and not very well defined.
"Bond meets Camille again, and after leaving and being stopped by the Bolivian police, Bond finds Mathis beaten up in the boot of the car. The police try to kill Bond, but Mathis takes the shot instead. After dispatching the policemen, Bond cradles a dying Mathis in his arms, with Mathis asking both himself and Bond to forgive each other. It`s a poignant scene which is then completely ruined by Bond callously throwing a now dead Mathis into a building skip! Why the hell would the producers/scriptwriters/Craig think that is what Bond would do?"
Zorin:
For the same reason Roger Moore kicked LOCQUE off the cliff in EYES ONLY. James Bond is a paid assassin. He does not have the time or inclination to attend respectful wakes and homilies. And he knows MATHIS knows the same. And the plot can't have BOND get more police on his tail so he needs to hide MATHIS for to stall even a few hours.
Bond kicked Locque off the cliff because Locque was the enemy. I think there is a difference. I noticed second time around that Bond did stay with Mathis, (before he died) for quite some time, long enough for more of the police to turn up. Any police near to the area would have heard the gun shots, and they would have gotten to Bond very quickly. If Bond was that concerned about the police being on his tail, wouldn`t he have just left Mathis where he fell, regardless of whether he lived or died?
"Bond and Camille travel to Greene`s Bolivian base in a large transport plane, which Bond is piloting. My heart sank at seeing Bond flying a plane again. After the realism of CR, it saddened me that the producers/scriptwriters felt the need to make Bond a superman again, simply to stage another action sequence and show off the fact that Bond can do just about anything. It is highly unlikely that a secret agent would know how to/or have been trained to fly a plane, (of whatever size) so why insult the audience and allow this to happen in the film?"
Zorin:
BOND is a naval commander used to piloting every vehicle going. It would be a necessity of his training to be able to fly, no? And did we question when he flew Little Nelly, the Acrostar and the Hercules?
Here I have to disagree with you. Craig said during the making of this film, that he and the producers/director, wanted to invoke the spirit of Ian Fleming. Tell me where, in any of the books does Bond fly any kind of arial machine? He doesn`t. As I said in my above paragraph, this sequence was simply put into the film for its action content and for the fact that it shows the audience that Bond can do anything. For the record I hated Bond flying Little Nellie, the Acrostar and the Hercules, simply because of my points above. It`s simply not the kind of thing Fleming would have had Bond do in the books. They (Craig/producers/director) cannot say they want to do one thing, then blatantly end up doing the opposite.
"Bond falling out of the plane was just another nod to Moonraker the film, and not done as well or as exciting. Like the boat chase, the air battle is a bit ho-hum, as is the ending in Greene`s base. The fight scenes between Bond/Greene and Camille/the general, echo the ending on the plane in DAD, as does the sequence where Bond is comforting Camille with the fire raging around them, which is similar to Bond comforting Vesper in the shower."
Zorin:
I sort of thought that WAS exactly the point of that scene.
I got the impression that Craig wants each Bond film he is in, to be different from the last. How can that happen when they keep adding nods to both CR and previous Bond films?
"At the end Bond says goodbye to Camille, with a simple kiss, and no sex, (echoes of the ending of the Moonraker novel) and we learn that Greene has been killed by his own organisation."
Zorin:
Yes - that is what we are told. But these are Bond villains. What we are told and what actually happened are not always the same.
I think you are wanting more than is already there. M says Greene is dead. So he`s dead. Why would M lie to Bond? What would she achieve by doing this?
"The film wraps with Bond encountering Vesper`s boyfriend and having a heart to heart with M, before disappearing into the night, with only Vesper`s necklace laying on a snow covered ground, to tell the audience that Bond has finally found peace with himself and with the woman he did in fact love. A poignant end is then slightly ruined by the sudden appearance of Craig`s gun barrel being tacked onto the end. It doesn`t sit right here and I can only hazard a guess it was put at the end to give the film a more upbeat ending, (a la OHMSS) to tell the audience that they have in fact been watching a James Bond film, and not some romantic drama."
Zorin:
It was all about closure.
Yes, I understood that at the first showing I attended. Having seen it a second time, (and having read other CBN reviews about it) I guess I can understand now why the gun barrel was placed at the end of the film. It`s telling the audience, (whether they do get it or not) that Bond is now Bond, and Bond 23 can begin without all the guilt and hurt he has been carrying around since the end of CR.
Having said that, I thought that Bond saying the infamous, “My name is...” line at the end of CR, also signalled to the audience that Bond had, by the end of the film, become the Bond we all know. Yes? No?
"Overall, I would give the film 4/10. The 4 is simply for the performances of both Craig and Dench, either acting together or separately. They alone make you want to stay with the film, when all around them, things plotwise seem to be falling apart. Olga Kurylenko is fine as Camille, and it would be interesting if her character does come back in Bond 23 or beyond, but with the exception of Giancarlo Giannini, (and to a lesser extent Jeffrey Wright in another almost cameo role) the rest of the supporting cast are poor, compared to the supporting cast that we had in CR."
Having seen the film again, I still stand by my comments regarding the cast and plot, but my rating for it has changed.
"I was hoping we were going to learn a lot more about the sinister QUANTUM organisation but alas, that wasn`t to be. We don`t even know if QUANTUM does, in fact, stand for anything, (as SPECTRE did)."
Zorin:
QUANTUM being an acronym is hardly the point right now, is it? You can't berate the film makers for having nods to old Bond in the same breath as criticise them for not doing it where you want it. OF COURSE we don't know much about the Organisation. What did we really find out in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or THUNDERBALL about SPECTRE? It's part of the enigma - part of the intrigue.
I think we found out quite a bit in those three films, (as well as in Dr. No). In the first film, Dr. No spells out both for Bond and the audience, exactly what the letters SPECTRE stand for. Straight away both Bond and the audience know exactly what SPECTRE stands for, (their aims) and what it can do, (funding Dr. No`s toppling programme). FRWL and YOLT shows that SPECTRE is prepared to get into bed with any organisation, if a profit can be made, (in both films SPECTRE used the ‘extortion’ from their title by extorting money from both the Russians and the Chinese) and TB shows both the ‘Terrorism’ and ‘Extortion’ aspects when trying to obtain money from either/both the UK and US governments. All of this tells the audience what SPECTRE does, and clearly defines what it wants to do.
In QOS, QUANTUM seems to me to be a bit wishy washy. They come over as more a financial organisation, than a terrorist organisation, and we don`t know clearly what they are ultimately trying to achieve. Perhaps this will be made more clear in Bond 23, but a bit more information about the organisation wouldn`t have gone amiss with me, had it been included in QOS. I guess I never got the sense of how powerful QUANTUM really is, (apart from being able to overthrow countries) as opposed to knowing exactly, (in each of their films) how powerful SPECTRE was.
"It seems to me that QUANTUM is not in the same league as SPECTRE when it comes to terrorism and extortion."
Zorin:
So planning to destroy a Super Boeing is not about death and mayhem?
It is, but not on the TB scale of destroying a nuclear bomb on Miami, or causing World War III in YOLT, or destroying the world`s economy in OHMSS. These are much bigger threats, with more at stake for Bond and the rest of the world, than the threat posed in QOS.
"They seem to just be a large organisation that wants to have many fingers in many financial pies, and in the case of this film, (wanting the rights to land) are happy to pay for it in the legal, (illegal?) way. Can`t quite see that Blofeld and SPECTRE would do business in the same way, somehow."
Zorin:
All OHMSS's BLOFELD wanted was a pardon. To me, the Bond villains work best when they use the grossest means to prove the smallest point.
Actually, Blofeld wanted a pardon and official recognition of his Count title, before he retired into private life. Of course, Blofeld knew the authorities wouldn`t just hand him that pardon. He had to have something to back himself up, and that was the virus.
"Apart from Italy, I didn`t think the locations suited a Bond film, and the lack of gadgets, (was there one?) may upset some of the audience used to seeing just the one in CR."
Zorin:
Not everyone wants a gadget-fest. And the locations were perfect for this Bond film - or they were to me. The water-starved Parisians or LA dwellers doesn't quite have the same poignancy to it as the peasants of Bolivia having to uproot and move away from their traditional homes. The locations in SOLACE serve and augment the narrative. That is the only way the Bond films can move forward. We're not in the globe-trotting for the sake of it world anymore - not when every actor and comedian has a travel show on TV at the moment.
I did say that the lack of gadgets ‘may’ upset some of the audience. Bond fans may not miss them, but the general going cinema public might. Myself, I didn`t particularly miss the lack of gadgets, as I feel they weren`t needed, (or were perhaps suitable) for this type of Bond film.
Funnily enough, I felt with this film that we were globe-trotting for the sake of it. Bond goes here and there, with hardly any time for the audience to take in the new surroundings, before going off again.
"I had higher hopes for David Arnold`s music this time around. Having felt he had “come of age” with his CR score, it`s sad to report that much of the QOS music seems to have gone back to his TND-DAD days. We didn`t even get a stirring rendition of the Bond theme, when Bond was in danger or going through one of the many set pieces. After deliberately keeping the Bond theme out of CR, (until the end) it makes no sense not to showcase it in this film, bearing in mind at the beginning of QOS, Bond has become the Bond we know and love. Okay, he still has a few rough edges, but it`s still the Bond we know. Perhaps the time has come for a change in composer?"
I still stand by this, having been able to listen to the music more intently this time. The lack of the Bond theme is still, however, scandalous, especially when the ‘action’ music Arnold has replaced it with, doesn`t involve any sense of excitement, (with perhaps the exception of the PTS music).
"The worst part of this, however, is the script. Hardly any humour, (and less than in CR) and the dialogue in places was pretty dire. I was hoping there would be a line in the film explaining the film`s title, (for those not familar with Fleming`s short story) but alas that wasn`t to be. I noticed in the credits that Haggis was credited above Purvis and Wade, so I`m wondering if it was true when reports mentioned that P&W`s original script was thrown out, (with perhaps just a few things of theirs kept in) and Haggis was given free rein to create his own story. If that is the case, then Mr. Haggis, stick to just polishing a Bond script, and not fully writing one."
Zorin:
The film DOES have a great deal of humour. It is just subtle and not on the nose.
I have seen the film twice now, and both times the so called humour hasn`t made the audience I saw it with, laugh that much. The sea sick one liner got laughs at both showings, but the lottery line failed to raise a titter at the second showing. The “She might have handcuffs”/”I do hope so” line did get laughs at both screenings, and I feel that kind of remark/humour echoed the kind of subtle but funny lines/humour found in CR.
"I don`t know where the producers will go next with Bond 23, but whichever way they do go, it has to have a storyline that adheres to the spirit of Ian Fleming. The difference between CR and QOS is simply down to the fact that the former is based on a Fleming novel, and the latter is completely made up."
Understanding, (and enjoying) the film better a second time around, I still stand by the fact that the lack of anything 'Fleming' in a Bond film, makes for a poorer Bond film.
"There are elements from the Fleming novels that haven`t been used yet, and if the producers don`t want to go down that avenue then they have to craft a story that at least has Flemingesque elements in it, (a la Living Daylights). If they don`t, then the talents of people like Craig and Dench will be wasted, and Bond WILL become the next Jason Bourne, instead of it being the other way round. And that would be absolutely terrible."
Zorin:
Perhaps there is a reason that some Fleming work has not been used yet - it's because it can't, wouldn't or doesn't work. I really think the producers would kill to have more decent Fleming material to mine for endless films. The truth is, they have nearly taken all that they can that is workable for them.
I disagree here. A good scriptwriter could weave missing Fleming elements into a Bond film. It has been done before, with Eyes Only, Octopussy and Daylights being two examples. Nineteen years ago, I wrote my own script of what would eventually become Licence to Kill, using only the plotline of Bond being suspended from MI6, and I weaved in missing Fleming elements from LALD, DAF, OHMSS, YOLT and GG. I kept the original title, Licence Revoked, but had a completely different plot to the one Sanchez had in the eventual film. Bond is not on a revenge mission in my script, but it contained the Bond formula that worked so well in Daylights, whilst being a completely different film. So, if I, a novice scriptwriter can do it, an experienced paid scriptwriter should have no trouble!
Zorin:
I hope I haven't attacked you here, Andy. I felt compelled to respond as not nearly enough naysayers of QUANTUM OF SOLACE are outlining why - so when you did I wanted to provide a counter-argument here and there. I hope you don;t mind. If I agreed with you I would back you up. At least you have stuck to your opinion and expanded upon it rather than reduce things to base hatred and lazy bile the likes of which has really shown some Bond "fans" true colours in recent days.
Not at all, Zorin. You put your points across well and some of your comments HAVE made me see the film differently, (when I went to see it a second time) and now that I see things a bit more differently, I am happy to say that it has risen a bit more in my estimation, earning itself a 6 out of 10, (as opposed to my original 4 out of 10). The film for me still has faults, (as I have outlined above) and isn`t, for me, as good as CR. Perhaps Bond 23 needs to be a hybrid of CR and QOS, blending just the right amount of action and plot, which might then satisfy every Bond fan here!
Best
Andy
Edited by Auric64, 05 November 2008 - 01:34 PM.
